Meat type chicken parent (broiler breeders), grandparent, great grandparent and pedigree stock have the genetic potential for accelerated growth due to selection for growth rate, meat yield, and feed efficiency since the 1940's (Havenstein et al., 1994a; 1994b; 2003a, 2003b; Zuidhof et al. 2014). These breeding stocks must be maintained using strict feed rationing to control body weight because even moderate overfeeding reduces reproductive performance (Robinson et al. 1998). Each year, the problem becomes greater due to increasing incongruity between the body weight required for reproductive success and the genetic potential of their offspring.
Commercially, feed allocation decisions for broiler breeders are a significant challenge. Changes in dietary ingredient composition, environmental temperature, and the activity level of the animals are factors in the decision about what to feed, so as to ensure tight control of body weight. Further, even if correct feed amounts are provided, equal distribution to birds in the flock is difficult because of competition for a limited amount of feed (Zuidhof et al., 2014). Even if the average body weight of a flock is close to target, poor uniformity is becoming a serious problem because more aggressive animals eat more and become overweight, while less aggressive ones become underweight. Both scenarios reduce health, welfare, and reproductive success. State of the art in feeding broiler breeders currently involves specialized feed pans (Cole et al., 2009; 2012) and restriction grills that allow for sex-separate feeding (Brake et al., 1994) and feed distribution systems that permit weighing feed for females and males separately (Horwood, 2001). All of these challenges apply to various extents to any animal requiring some degree of feed restriction to control body weight or condition.
In some regions of the world where labor is relatively inexpensive, flock uniformity is managed by continually sorting animals into groups with similar body weight ranges. This approach has been automated for some livestock applications (Thibault et al., 2007), but does not address the issue in broiler breeders of intense competition for feed. For poultry, no similar precision feeding system exists anywhere in the world. There is no commercial feeding system anywhere for broiler breeders that provides feed based on real-time feedback about the body weight of individual animals and how that weight compares to the targets established by primary breeders.
Primary breeders and researchers need accurate and complete measures of feed intake to measure efficiency and understand feeding behaviour and energy metabolism rhythms as affected by feed intake patterns. Some prior art feeding systems include the following.
For poultry, Aviagen (Aviagen, 2014), Cobb-Vantress (Ken Semon, personal communication), and Hybrid Turkeys (Ben Wood, personal communication) have developed proprietary feeding systems that monitor individual feed intake, which are used for selecting for efficiency in free run meat-type poultry. These systems do not control feed intake, but simply monitor it.
For cattle, Growsafe has a similar system for cattle that monitors individual feed and water intake. It is used primarily to identify efficient phenotypes in cattle (Huisma et al., 2005). The Growsafe system monitors, but does not control feed intake, and is designed for much larger animals, such as cattle. There are also sorting systems for dairy cattle; however, these systems are large and unsuitable for small animals.
For swine, electronic sow feeding systems (Eakin et al., 2012) weigh and feed animals, but the animal access is completely different. It is unsuitable for smaller animals such as poultry and small pets, and requires pre-programming of individual animal characteristics and nutritional requirements into the system.
For pets, some pet feeding devices are similar, but like the systems for pigs and dairy cattle, they require programming a feed dosage or feeding duration rather than relying on direct feedback in the form of real-time body weight data (e.g. McKeown, 2007; Stanchev et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2009).
The duty cycle of the mechanical parts of feeding stations is high. Mechanical failure may cause feed interruptions and undesirable behaviours, particularly once the stations return to function after repair. The design must facilitate rapid and easy repairs by farmers and technicians. Doors and ejectors must operate smoothly, allow and exclude access reliably, and prevent injury when moving. Scales must be accurate and free of vibration. The feeder must be reliable and minimize spillage.
It is, therefore, desirable to provide a method and system for feeding animals, such as poultry, that overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art.